[FOM] "Mathematician in the street" on AC
pratt at cs.stanford.edu
Fri Aug 21 18:23:05 EDT 2009
We should agree to agree. I don't see any of the differences between us
that you're pointing to as significant.
In particular we agree that these street mathematicians (one pictures
them performing Hilbert's Nullstellensatz while passers-by drop coins in
their hat) are enumerating witnesses to countability rather than
countable sets. As long as they understand that that's what they're
enumerating then I don't see the problem.
> (Indeed, in most cases in which the theorem about the countability
> of the countable union of countable sets is applied in practice,
> We have such X and F available, so we do not have to use AC).
Exactly so. Depriving the street mathematician of her witnesses is like
depriving a boxer of his fists. (Hilbert didn't think to apply that
argument to AC, which he acknowledged as problematic, while applying it
to intuitionistic logic, where Goedel's translation shows that fists
only flatten theorems by erasing the distinction between P and ~~P, they
do not deprive the mathematician of any theorems.) Why should she care
that foundationalists make things harder by killing off her witnesses?
You have to give her a situation she cares about where she has a list of
countable sets with no witnesses to their countability. Good luck with
that, she's probably never run across such a thing.
Unless you can offer her a persuasive example of such, this is what I
meant in my first post where I said it's probably safer not to bring
this foundational weirdness up with "working mathematicians" since
they'll just take it as evidence that foundations creates obstacles
where none are apparent to the working mathematician.
More information about the FOM